Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« January 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
BULLETIN
Friday, 30 January 2004

>> EAST AFRICA WATCH...

Moi's Pension: Bill Now Allows Politics
By FRED OLUOCH
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
A CONTROVERSIAL clause in Kenya's Presidential Retirement Benefits Bill barring retired presidents from engaging in political activities if they are to earn their pension has been removed, paving the way for former president Daniel arap Moi to participate in the affairs of the official opposition party Kanu.
But questions still remained last week, barely a month after President Mwai Kibaki assented to the amended Bill on December 31, as to whether the government was reacting to pressure from Kanu, or whether it was seeking some accommodation with the party in view of the infighting within the ruling National Rainbow Coalition.
Pointing at clause 6 (1) of the Bill, which stated, "A retired president shall neither hold office in nor actively participate in the activities of any political party," while part (2) of the same clause stated, "A retired president shall be expected to play a non-partisan, consultative and advisory role to the government of Kenya", the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Kiraitu Murungi, had insisted that Mr Moi would have to stay out of politics or lose his benefits.
The EastAfrican has, however, established that the clauses were amended during the committee stage, leaving the clause open to interpretation and probably giving the former president a leeway to participate in political activities.
According to William Ruto, the Kanu director of elections and a close associate of Mr Moi, the provision was bound to give room to the government to use flimsy reasons to get back at the former president since it is difficult to pinpoint what constitutes political action.
"A former head of state is experienced and mature enough to restrain himself in such circumstances. But this cannot be legally enforced, given that even voting is a political action. You cannot run away from the reality that Mr Moi was a politician for a long time and had developed a Kenyan constituency in those 24 years," he said.
The amendment, however, had more to it than sheer persistence by Kanu. It had the full blessing of some faction in the ruling party who, it is understood, had realised that the former president could serve as a stabilising force at a time when the survival of the NARC coalition is increasingly in doubt. However, he is still not allowed to hold an elective party post.
The development, strongly opposed by those who would rather see the retired president account for some of the shortcomings of his 24-year rule, is bound to raise doubts as to whether part of the Narc leadership - some of whom cut their political teeth under Mr Moi - is capable of making a complete break with the past. It is also debatable whether Mr Moi will ever face any prosecutions for any alleged past misdeeds.
Kanu's Shadow Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs and Mr Moi's personal lawyer, Mutula Kilonzo, who fiercely fought for the repeal of the restrictive clause, maintained last week that the provision was likely to interfere with the former president's right to association just like any other citizen as enshrined in the constitution.
"The man has served the country for a long time and we cannot afford to put in place discriminatory clauses that isolate him from the rest of the country. It is not possible for anybody to play non-partisan politics and NARC ought not to be frightened by the former president because he means well," he said.
But despite Mr Kilonzo's brave talk, it is now emerging that some National Alliance Party of Kenya (NAK) leaders have realised that the former president, who still wields enormous influence, could come in handy when it comes to future alliances.
NAK leaders, according to sources, intend to use the former president to continue influencing the politics of the expansive Rift Valley that was on the verge of falling into the hands of youthful MPs, who have little time for NARC.
With a record 48 years in politics, including 24 years as president, Mr Moi will have a great influence in Kenyan politics as long as he lives.
It is an open secret that the former president continues to call the shots in Kanu despite having officially relinquished the party chairmanship in September last year. A case in point is his key role in the recent formation of the Coalition of National Unity (CNU), that brought together Kanu and Ford-People.
Notably, during the parliamentary debate on the Bill in October, Mr Murungi, who had come to epitomise the "Moi-bashing" brigade, was a changed man.
As he put it, "We want to send out the message that there is dignified life after a president retires. There is no president who will not make a mistake here and there. Human errors can always be forgiven," said Murungi, who appealed to Kenyans to show tolerance, understanding and treat elder statesmen with respect for the sake of development and peace.
Apparently, Kenyans were surprised when the former president, who had been shunned since he handed over power on December 30 last year, attended the October 20 Kenyatta Day festivities at Nyayo stadium and was later invited to a State House party where he was warmly welcomed by President Mwai Kibaki, besides exchanging pleasantries with his hitherto "predators."
But more surprising were media reports that Mr Moi had, on the following day, a hushed one-hour private meeting with President Kibaki, where the two are reported to have discussed the recently-established Moi African Foundation and the possible role the former president could play in regional peace-making.
Yet, that does not take away the lingering apprehension within NARC that the former president still retains tremendous clout and capacity to interfere with the government of the day, even though he has continuously insisted that he cannot undermine an African government and has always wished President Kibaki well.
This perception came to the fore during the 2002 elections, where Mr Moi, by fronting the relatively inexperienced Uhuru Kenyatta at the expense of more seasoned politicians in Kanu, was seen to be seeking to maintain a tab on the affairs of the country even in retirement, just like the former Tanzanian president, the late Julius Nyerere.
Nyerere, despite his retirement in 1985, continued to play an active role in that country's politics, where he not only handpicked his successors - Ali Hassan Mwinyi and Benjamin Mkapa - but openly campaigned for his party, Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM)
According to the Minister for Co-operative Development, Njeru Ndwiga, Mr Moi should strive to be non-partisan at all times, even as he is free to comment on political issues. "A retired president is a key figure in the country's politics and should be accorded respect by all Kenyans. But this respect can only be achieved by him staying away from partisan politics," he argued.
Also not happy with the development is the Safina leader, Paul Muite, who argued that the decision to give Mr Moi his retirement benefits without linking it to transitional justice sets a bad precedent.
"While restricting his political activities could have meant gagging an individual and denying him his human rights, it is not proper for one to destroy the country and then enjoy the benefits," he argued.
"You can only have democracy if you have the courage to confront the past. It is wrong to begin to pay him pension without making him account for past misdeeds, such as the ethnic clashes and destruction of the economy," he said.
Mr Muite, however, insisted that he is not vindictive, arguing, "If we don't address past looting of the economy, the current regime will do the same, since people will be taking office with the aim to loot, knowing that they will not be called to account for their actions."
Mr Kilonzo, on the other hand, maintained that there is need to differentiate between political and legal crimes. According to him, Mr Moi was politically punished when he witnessed his party being voted out of power as a result of his mistake to nominate Mr Kenyatta as the party presidential candidate. "But mistakes of a criminal nature have their place in the courts of law and I am ready for anybody who has one."
He argued that the decision to give the former president his benefits without conditions is for the future benefit of the country, since it will put a stop to the urge by politicians to amass wealth at any cost out of fear that they will be turned into paupers.
"Eighty per cent of the sitting president's salary is reasonable to convince anybody not to steal and plunder, knowing very well that they will be comfortable in retirement." he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Saudi Charity Plotted to Bomb Zanzibar Hotels, US Charges
By KEVIN J. KELLEY
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
MEMBERS OF the Tanzanian branch of a Saudi charity plotted last year to attack several hotels in Zanzibar, the US charged last week.
"The scheduled attacks did not take place due to increased security by local authorities, but planning for the attacks remained active," US officials added.
The charges came as the US Treasury Department called for international financial sanctions against the Tanzanian and Kenyan branches of the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation. The two East African organisations, along with Al Haramain affiliates in Indonesia and Pakistan, are involved in terrorist activity, the US said.
The Kenyan and Tanzanian groups are specifically linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, according to American officials. The two branches are also said to have ties to an organisation in Somalia that the US says is involved in terrorism.
Acting jointly with the government of Saudi Arabia, US officials last week asked the United Nations to order its member states to freeze assets belonging to the al Haramain groups in the four named countries. Al Haramain has denied any connection to terrorism.
Individuals associated with the Kenyan and Tanzanian branches are said to have been involved in the plots to destroy the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998.
An unnamed former director of the Tanzanian branch of Al Haramain assisted the advance team that plotted the bombings, which killed a total of 212 Africans and 12 Americans.
The US Treasury Department also revealed that an Al Haramain employee had indicated how the Nairobi embassy would be attacked a full year before the bombing actually took place. This source disclosed in August 1997 that a suicide bomber would crash a vehicle into the embassy's gate. And that is indeed how the bombing was carried out 12 months later. The allegation of the terrorist plot comes five months after the US State Department issued a travel advisory on Tanzania, which included warnings of threats in Zanzibar.
Attempts by The EastAfrican to raise the issue with the government and Bakwata - Tanzania Muslims apex organisation were unsuccessful.
A few months ago, however, two Al Haramain leaders were declared prohibited immigrants - one for cheating in his real citizenship papers. It could not be established immediately why the second one was deported.

Posted by maximpost at 11:43 PM EST
Permalink

>> ZARQAWI FILE...

U.S. Links Zarqawi to Attacks in Iraq
By KATHERINE PFLEGER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. officials say they have mounting evidence to suggest al-Qaida operative Abu Musab Zarqawi has had a hand in multiple attacks in Iraq, including those on a mosque in Najaf, the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and Italy's paramilitary police station in Nasiriyah.
Another al-Qaida member, Hassan Ghul, was arrested this month while entering northern Iraq and is believed to have met with Zarqawi to plan attacks against U.S. and coalition forces, said a U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Now in U.S. custody, Ghul is believed to be cooperating with interrogators. He known as a facilitator who can move people and money around and is the highest ranking member of al-Qaida to be arrested in Iraq.
The official said Ghul has also worked closely with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Coalition forces are dealing with both Iraqi opposition and foreign insurgents, like Zarqawi. He has been described as a key link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, but has managed to avoid capture.
The official wouldn't comment on Zarqawi's suspected location.
In August, a truck bomb struck hit U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, killing 23 people, and a car bomb exploded outside mosque in Shiite Muslim holy city of Najaf, killing more than 85. In November, a suicide truck bomber attacked Italy's paramilitary police headquarters in southern city of Nasiriyah, killing more than 30.
The United States has "strong suspicions" that Zarqawi was involved in all three, the official said.

Posted by maximpost at 11:21 PM EST
Permalink

>> BREMER AND SISTANI...

Call Me Ali
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/current
Juan Coleprofessor of modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan and author, Sacred Space And Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi'ite Islam (I.B. Tauris, 2002)
explains the rise and vision of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani


BREMER AND QUIL...
Kirkuk report (6:00)
http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/20040130.shtml
The Northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk is a site of turmoil involving the city's three main ethnic groups. The battle for political control is on hold, but the scramble to control Kirkuk's re-emerging economy is well under way. The World's Quil Lawrence has the story.

BREMER AND THE HAJ...
Iraq passport report (6:00)
http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/20040129.shtml
From overwhelming bureaucracy to disarray at the passport office, getting a passport in Iraq these days isn't easy. The World's Quil Lawrence reports from Baghdad.

>> HUMAN RIGHTS THEY SAID...

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/current
William Schulz
William Schulz argues that since 9/11, human rights violations carried out in the name of the war on terror have become all too common in the United States. His new book is Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights. Schulz is the executive director of Amnesty International USA.

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INTERVIEW...
Listen to World Update
Updated daily at 10:00 GMT
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/world_update.shtml

U.S. Officials Still Holding Juveniles in Guantanamo Prison for Terror Suspects

By Ian James Associated Press Writer
Published: Jan 30, 2004
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) - The United States is still holding juveniles at its prison for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay despite this week's release of the three youngest detainees, officials said Friday.
Human Rights Watch said the United States is violating an international treaty that obligates it to rehabilitate child soldiers.
On Thursday the United States freed three boys, believed to be between 13 and 15. The International Committee of the Red Cross said Friday it helped reunite them with their families in Afghanistan.
Two of the boys were captured during raids on Taliban camps and were imprisoned at Guantanamo in January 2002, while the third was captured trying to obtain weapons for the Taliban and taken to Guantanamo in February 2003, military officials said in November. However, officials said Thursday that all three arrived in February 2003. It wasn't immediately possibly to clarify the discrepancy.
Military officials said the boys were kept apart from adult detainees, and were given lessons, including in English, and allowed to play soccer and to watch videos.
But other juveniles aged 16 and 17 are being held among the approximately 650 other detainees from about 40 countries whose exercise periods are limited and whose only diversion are books.
"There is still a small group of juveniles under 18 at Guantanamo," said Amanda Williamson of the ICRC's office in Washington, D.C. The Department of Defense has confirmed that an unspecified number of 16- and 17-year-olds are still in detention, and Jo Becker of Human Rights Watch said the Pentagon had said there are "a handful."
"Guantanamo is not really an appropriate place to detain juveniles because they're taken so far from their culture and are unable to benefit from the support of their families," said Williamson. His ICRC organization is the only independent group allowed to visit the detainees.
Pressure has been mounting on U.S. officials to release the juveniles or transfer them to another facility. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who is in charge of the detention mission, recommended in August that the three youngest boys be sent home, saying they "were kidnapped into terrorism (by) despicable people who are using juveniles as a part of this scourge of terrorism."
The United States turned its naval base on Cuba's eastern tip into a prison during the war in Afghanistan, when soldiers arrested hundreds of suspected al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Military officials said the boys had provided viable intelligence but had no further value and were no longer a threat to the United States.
Human Rights Watch asked when the other juveniles would be freed.
Becker said that the United States was violating the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Children, which it ratified in December 2002. The treaty establishes 18 as the minimum age for participation in armed conflict and obligates governments to demobilize and rehabilitate former child soldiers, Becker said.
AP-ES-01-30-04 2204EST
---------------------------------
>> IF ONLY WATCH...

UN votes on tough terror measures

By Susannah Price
BBC correspondent, United Nations
The United Nations Security Council has voted unanimously to name and shame countries that fail to report on their efforts to fight global terrorism.
It passed by 15-0 a resolution aimed at strengthening sanctions against al-Qaeda, Taleban and related groups.
Last year, a UN committee said stronger measures might be needed to compel UN member states to help fight terrorism.
It is hoped a threat of being publicly named will encourage governments to enforce sanctions against such groups.
More than half of the UN's member states have not submitted reports on what they are doing to limit the activities of these groups through freezing assets, a travel ban, or arms embargoes.
This latest resolution means the UN's al-Qaeda monitoring committee will be able to circulate a list of countries that do not submit a report by the end of March.
They will also publicise the reason behind the failure, whether it is a question of resources or political will.
The chairman of the monitoring committee and sponsor of the resolution, Ambassador Heraldo Munoz of Chile, said this would send a strong signal.
The new resolution calls on governments to look out for al-Qaeda or associated groups, trying to channel funds through different means, such as the informal banking system.
But it does not include any real new sanctions.
American diplomats said they wanted to improve the implementation of measures in the original resolution before taking any further steps.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3446769.stm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published: 2004/01/31 02:13:12 GMT

Ex-French PM guilty of corruption


A court has found former French Prime Minister Alain Juppe guilty of involvement in a party funding scam in Paris in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Juppe, one of President Jacques Chirac's closest allies, immediately appealed against the conviction.
The court gave him an 18-month suspended sentence and barred him from political office for up to 10 years.
However, he will be able to continue as mayor of Bordeaux, and as head of the governing UMP party during the appeal.
It's a hammer blow for Jacques Chirac, who thus loses his closest adviser and his designated successor, for whom he had real affection
Anita Hauser, political commentator
The prosecution argued that Juppe allowed party employees to be put on the city payroll and to be paid for by private companies when he was deputy mayor of Paris.
Mr Chirac was then the city's mayor.
Juppe denied the charges, saying that he put an end to all irregularities as soon as he found out about them.
He said this month he would quit politics if found guilty.
Earthquake
He had widely been expected to run as the centre-right's candidate in the 2007 presidential election if Jacques Chirac does not seek a third term.
JUPPE'S CAREER
1976: Hired as speech writer to Mr Chirac
1983-1995: Deputy Mayor of Paris
1986-1988: Deputy Finance Minister
1993-1995: Foreign Minister
1995-1997: Prime Minister
2002-present: Head of the governing UMP
"You can imagine the political earthquake this is going to cause," said Anita Hauser, political commentator for the private LCI television channel.
"It's a hammer blow for Jacques Chirac, who thus loses his closest adviser and his designated successor, for whom he had real affection," she said.
Juppe was prime minister between 1995 and 1997, when he lost an election amid industrial unrest caused by his attempts to push through social and economic reforms.
'Unjust'
He made no comment after the verdict was announced and left the courtroom by a back door.
The court wanted to throw Mr Juppe out of politics
Juppe defence lawyer Francis Szpiner
But his lawyer, Francis Szpiner, said the verdict was "questionable and unjust" and said he would file an appeal.
"The court wanted to throw Mr Juppe out of politics," he said.
Correspondents say Juppe's departure from the political scene would create an awkward vacuum at the top of the UMP party, which could result in a power struggle.
BBC Paris correspondent Caroline Wyatt says the sentence itself could also raise fresh questions about Mr Chirac's own role in the party-funding affair, even though as French president he has immunity from prosecution.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3444239.stm
Published: 2004/01/30 14:32:53 GMT
? BBC MMIV

Posted by maximpost at 10:56 PM EST
Updated: Friday, 30 January 2004 11:07 PM EST
Permalink

John Kerry and Other Men's Money
by Ann Coulter
Posted Jan 29, 2004
After the New Hampshire primary, Dennis Kucinich's new slogan is: ".001 Percent of America Can't Be Wrong!" John Edwards' new slogan is: "Vote for Me or We'll See You in Court." Joe Lieberman's new slogan is: "Sixth Place Is Not an Option." (Bumper sticker version: "Ask Me About My Delegate.") Al Sharpton's new slogan is "Hello? Room Service?" Wesley Clark's new slogan is: "Leading America's War on Fetuses." Howard Dean's new slogan is: "I Want to Be Your President ... And So Do I!"
That leaves John Kerry (new slogan: "Nous Sommes Nombre Un!"), who is winning Democratic voters in droves on the basis of his superior ability to taunt George Bush for his lack of combat experience. Like every war hero I've ever met, John Kerry seems content to spend his days bragging about his battlefield exploits. Wait, wait ... Let me correct that last sentence: like no war hero I've ever met ...
As everyone has heard approximately 1 billion times by now, Kerry boasts that he has REAL experience with aircraft carriers, and if Bush wants to run on national security, then ... BRING IT ON!
I note that when George Bush directed that precise phrase at Islamic terrorists who yearn to slaughter American women and children, liberals were enraged at the macho posturing of it. But they feel "Bring it on!" is a perfectly appropriate expression when directed at a dangerous warmonger like George Bush. ("Bring it on!" was deemed better than Kerry's first impulse, "Let's get busy, sister!")
Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own. One has to stand in awe of Kerry's military service 33 years ago. Of course, that's where it ends, including with Kerry -- inasmuch as, upon his return from war in 1970, he promptly began trashing his fellow Vietnam vets by calling them genocidal murderers.
But if Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure as hell can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class. Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters.
For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes?
In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while he was still married. (Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children -- a fact that never seemed to constrain him.
When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife.
Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration.
At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the Heinz family fortune. (Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV ads.
Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see: According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's income was $144,091. But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost $30,389 a month -- or $364,668 a year.
The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is living in the lap of other men's money.
Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for the past 33 years?
Copyright ? 2003 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Posted by maximpost at 10:28 PM EST
Permalink

The Anti-Federalist Society
Why Turkey, Iran, and Syria all have worries about Iraq's new federalist outlook.
by Gerald Robbins
01/28/2004 11:40:00 AM

TURKEY'S PRIME MINISTER Recep Tayyip Erdogan is scheduled to meet with President George Bush in Washington today. Among the topics that will be discussed are Iraq's political future. While the aim of this parley is to correct the recent dissonance in U.S.-Turkish relations, recent signals from Ankara indicate that this will not be a simple task.
The two leaders last met in December 2002. The major issue then concerned Washington's ultimately futile attempt to secure Turkish support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Both sides now wish to move past those differences, yet Iraq still remains a contentious topic. There's major discord over how to govern post-Saddam Iraq. Whereas Washington believes in a federalist solution, Ankara thinks otherwise.
Generally speaking, Turks are wary about federalism. It is a concept at variance with the nation's administrative infrastructure. History explains why: The Ottoman Empire's decentralized character was a major factor in its eventual downfall. Loose management of a multiethnic population resulted in constant rebellions and general instability.
Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey's founding father, saw autonomy's detrimental effects and sought to rectify it. His solution was to create a strong, centralized system, largely derived from the French model of governance. This structure has remained intact throughout the past 80 years, warding off all attempts at reform.
THE ISSUE of the Kurds substantiates Turkey's centralist nature. Fears that a centralized Iraq can augment separatist notions among Turkey's estimated 13 to 16 million Kurds (approximately 20 to 25 percent of the nation's 67 million inhabitants) are based on precedent. From the early 1980s to mid 1990s, the Turkish government fought a Kurdish insurrection which claimed 37,000 lives. Turkey's national psyche is still scarred.
Yet comparing Turkey's Kurds with their Iraqi brethren is mixing apples and oranges. The Kurdish populace is a collection of different tribes and dialects that are often at cross-purposes with one another. This even extends to the political sphere--Turkey's Kurdish separatists adhere to Marxist-Leninist precepts while Iraq's Kurdish leadership reflects a meshing of clan affiliation with social democratic thought.
It can be further argued that a de facto federalism already exists in Kurdish Iraq. A U.N.-sponsored Kurdish enclave was established after the 1991 Gulf War ended. Cognizant of Turkey's cross-border concerns, it hasn't turned into a staging area for Kurdish separatism. Trading thrives between this landlocked entity and the Turkish interior.
FEARS ABOUT FEDERALISM aren't a uniquely Turkish phenomenon. The very idea of decentralization also worries Iraq and Syria. In Teheran's case, the prospect of a federalist structure succeeding within the region is particularly vexing. It not only possesses a sizeable minority of 6.5 to 8 million Kurds, but nearly one quarter of Iran--66.5 million people--are Azeri Turks. When Arab, Baluchi, and other groups are further added to Iran's ethnic picture, it turns out that only 51 percent of the country's total population is of Persian descent.
NONETHELESS, democratic Turkey, theocratic Iran, and authoritarian Syria are all united in their stances against federalism. There's a censuring tone that's nearly indistinguishable among their respective leaderships. When Syrian president Bashir al-Assad visited Turkey earlier this month (the first time a Syrian leader traveled there), he stated that a Kurdish state in Iraq would be "a red line, not only as far as Syria and Turkey, but for all the countries in the region." Prime Minister Erdogan recently told the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram that federation "contradicts the reality of Iraq and the will of neighboring countries." Even the Turkish military, usually known for averting public discourse, had their say. "If there is a federal structure in Iraq on an ethnic basis, the future will be very difficult and bloody," one of Turkey's top generals commented.
Amid all this knee-jerk reaction, signs of a more amenable tone towards federalism have begun to appear. Several Turkish analysts note that it isn't federalism that they object to per se, but the emphasis on an ethnic and religious criteria for Iraq. A regional federalism is advocated instead, with Germany seen as the ideal prototype: They would like to see Bavaria's relation to Berlin emulated by the Kurds formulating their ties to Baghdad.
Germany's model can be studied, but to view it as the potential solution to Iraq's political future is an exercise in specious thinking. Bavarian and Turkish sociopolitics can't be homogenized into a one-size-fits-all apparatus. There is no set methodology to federalism, Iraq's model will differ from German and even American designs.
At least the Turks appear willing to give federalism a closer look. It doesn't fit current regional viewpoints, but Ankara and her autocratic neighbors lack any viable alternatives. It will be a tough task marketing, but decentralization is the best solution for Iraq and the future Middle East.

Gerald Robbins is an Associate Scholar with the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

? Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Posted by maximpost at 12:11 PM EST
Permalink

Cringe-onomics
Did any of the Democratic presidential contenders take Economics 101?

By J. Edward Carter

You can learn a lot about economics by watching Howard Dean and his rivals tussle over the Democratic presidential nomination. If you pay close attention, take copious notes, and ignore nearly everything the Democratic contenders say, you will learn a lot. Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry have each offered campaign proposals that would make any self-respecting economist cringe.
While some of their proposals may be characterized as merely ineffective or misleading, others are downright harmful. Some of their more egregious proposals include:
To "help families live and thrive off their wages," Howard Dean says he "will press Congress to move toward increasing the minimum wage to $7.00 per hour." Despite the populist appeal of such a move, increasing the minimum wage will only harm the least-skilled and least-educated members of the labor force. Even Dean's economic advisers have cautioned against raising the minimum wage.
As Joseph Stiglitz, former chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors and an occasional Dean advisor, wrote in his textbook, "a higher minimum wage does not seem a particularly useful way to help the poor." Why? According to Alan Blinder, another former Clinton economist known to be advising Dean, "The primary consequence of the minimum wage law is not an increase in the incomes of the least skilled workers but a restriction of their employment opportunities."
To spur economic growth and job creation, Dean would create "a White House Office of Economic Growth" (OEG). As the old saying goes, for every perceived problem there is an acronym in Washington waiting to be created. This reflects the notion that creating a new office and a new layer of bureaucrats is the same as finding a solution. Presumably Dean would add the OEG alongside the two currently existing offices in the White House that deal solely with economic matters -- the National Economic Council (NEC) and the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA).
John Edwards has called for a slew of new federal spending programs and (paradoxically) a return to fiscal discipline. Among other things, Edwards wants to lavish $50 billion on state governments and provide massive federal subsidies for education and health care. The cumulative price tag for his proposals could amount to nearly $1 trillion. Yet, Edwards insists he is an advocate of "fiscal discipline."
Unfortunately, in Washington, the common-sense notion of fiscal discipline -- being frugal and watching what you spend -- has been hijacked and redefined to mean "a willingness to raise taxes." In truth, raising taxes is akin to buying larger pants in lieu of exercise and a low-calorie diet. True fiscal discipline entails keeping government spending under control to minimize the drain of resources from the private sector to the public sector.
Likewise, Wesley Clark has yet to grasp the true meaning of fiscal discipline. Although Clark proposes to "save $2.35 trillion over ten years," tax increases account for more than half ($1.2 trillion) of the total. Reduced debt-service costs generate another $600 billion in savings. Actual spending cuts account for less than one-fourth of the total. And the vast majority of those spending cuts are unspecified and concealed under sweeping generalities such as "streamline government." But more importantly, Clark's spending cuts -- his "tough steps" -- equal less than two percent of what the federal government is expected to spend over the next ten years.
John Kerry routinely preaches that corporations should pay their "fair share" of the nation's tax burden." That sounds like a no-brainer. But it isn't. As most college freshmen learn in Economics 101, corporations do not pay taxes, people do. The burden of corporate taxation is ultimately borne by customers (through higher prices), stockholders (smaller dividends and capital gains), and employees (lower wages). As one introductory economics textbook warns, "Suffice it to say that you should be cautious when you advocate increasing corporate income taxes. You may be the one who ultimately ends up paying the increase."
The contenders for the Democratic nomination have much in common. They want to raise taxes. They want to spend more taxpayer dollars on a range of politically popular causes. And, unfortunately, they often demonstrate a poor understanding of basic economics. So sharpen your pencils and get ready to ignore almost everything you hear on the campaign trail. You can learn a lot.
-- J. Edward Carter is an economist in Washington, D.C., and the chairman of Economists for Bush.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200401300856.asp

----------------------------------------------------
Get Thee to the CIA
A new job for David Kay.

David Kay has returned from Iraq, having failed to locate the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) he was sent there to find. President George W. Bush's would-be successors and other critics have seized upon his conclusion that -- notwithstanding U.S. and foreign-intelligence assessments to the contrary -- they ceased to exist in large quantity after 1991 to justify charges of presidential malfeasance.
President Bush could be forgiven for feeling annoyed with Dr. Kay. A heated reelection campaign is not exactly the moment any candidate would chose have new turmoil engendered over one of his most controversial decisions.
The president should, instead, feel grateful to the erstwhile head of the Iraq Survey Group, both for his past, courageous public service and for his present candor. And there is no better, or more appropriate, way to express his appreciation than to ask him to replace George Tenet as Director of Central Intelligence (DCI).
David Kay has, after all, demonstrated once again the qualities of intellect, integrity, and independence that are always desirable in leaders of the U.S. intelligence community, but rarely more necessary than right now. Although he has expressed a view about the status of Saddam's missing weapons programs that is debatable -- and may ultimately be proven wrong -- the former weapons inspector has certainly said many things that have long needed saying.
For example, Dr. Kay has made clear that, if there is fault to be found over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the blame should lie with those intelligence officials who produced the faulty data, not those policymakers who made decisions on the basis of it. As he told National Public Radio last Sunday, "It's an issue of the capabilities of one's intelligence service to collect valid, truthful information."
In congressional testimony yesterday, Dr. Kay went even further: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president [an apology] rather than the president owing [one to] the American people." He went on to warn President Bush's partisan critics that, "We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration. It is not a political 'got you' issue. It is a serious issue of how you could come to the conclusion that is not matched by the [facts]."
One of Dr. Kay's most important observations cut the legs out from under those who insist the president and his subordinates -- in particular, Vice President Dick Cheney -- manipulated the intelligence they received from the CIA and other agencies. "In the course of [his work in Iraq], I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed and that they had estimated. Reality on the ground differed in advance. And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, 'I was pressured to do this.' The explanation was very often, 'The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it.'"
He went on to note that, "...Almost in a perverse way, I wish it had been undue influence because we know how to correct that. We get rid of the people who, in fact, were exercising that. The fact that it wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem of understanding what went wrong and we've got to figure out what was there. And that's what I call fundamental fault analysis."
Dr. Kay also offered an opinion on the question that properly should be the focus of the debate in this election cycle: Given what the Bush team was being told about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime, did it act not only properly, but prudently?
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion -- although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
That danger lay in the reality that, no matter how large the stocks of weapons of mass destruction retained by Saddam Hussein at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he surely retained at least small quantities, a likelihood David Kay acknowledges. As Secretary of State Colin Powell reminded the U.N. Security Council in his appearance before it on the eve of war, even a tiny vial of biological weapons could be employed to kill tens of thousands of people.
Underscoring this danger, Dr. Kay added: "After the war and with the inspection effort that we have carried out now for nine months, I think we all agree that there were not large amounts of weapons available for imminent action; that's not the same thing as saying it was not a serious, imminent threat that you're not willing to run for the nation. That is a political judgment, not a technical judgment."
More to the point, Dr. Kay's team has established that the Iraqi despot had the production capacity and know-how to produce a great deal more chemical and biological weaponry when international economic sanctions were lifted. It should be recalled that Russia, France, and Germany, among others, were actively working to bring about such an outcome. In fact, they would almost certainly have succeeded, but for President Bush's decisive leadership and action.
Even if Democratic presidential candidates refuse to acknowledge it, David Kay's testimony actually confirms the president's most important claim to reelection: He spared us the very difficult problem of having to do something about the "Butcher of Baghdad" after the U.N. had let Saddam out of the so-called "box" in which he was supposedly being "contained." Had that happened, there can be no doubt the Iraqi despot would not only have been the "grave and growing danger" President Bush said he was, but a truly "imminent" one.
George W. Bush could do himself and the country an enormous favor by recognizing that David Kay is the sort of man who should be fixing what ails America's intelligence services, notably by ending the practice of trying to get intelligence "on the cheap" without the costly and time-consuming investment in clandestine human assets (also known as spies). More importantly, Dr. Kay could be relied on as director of central intelligence to do what he has been doing ever since he got back from Iraq -- speaking truth to power, something we are likely to need more than ever if the war on terror is to be won by freedom-loving people.
-- Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and an NRO contributing editor.

http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200401290843.asp
-----------------------------------------------

DCI ANNOUNCES DUELFER TO SUCCEED KAY AS SPECIAL ADVISOR
Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet announced today that Dr. David Kay will be stepping down as his Special Advisor for Strategy regarding Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Programs. The DCI also announced that Dr. Kay will be succeeded by Charles A. Duelfer, who served as Deputy Executive Chairman of the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) from 1993 until its termination in 2000 and is currently a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Duelfer, 51, will be working closely with Major General Keith W. Dayton, who commands the Iraq Survey Group (ISG).
In making the announcement, Tenet praised Dr. Kay for his "extraordinary service under dangerous and difficult circumstances."
"David is a model private citizen who willingly lent his unique expertise to his government in a time of need," Tenet said. "At a time when our WMD hunt efforts were just beginning, David provided a critical strategic framework that enabled the ISG to focus the hunt for information on Saddam's WMD programs."
Dr. Kay will be returning to the private sector.
In accepting Dr. Kay's resignation and announcing Duelfer's appointment, Tenet said, "Building on the framework that David has put in place, I am very confident that Charlie and the ISG will continue to make progress in the months ahead in determining the status of the former Iraqi regime's WMD programs."
"Given his knowledge of Iraqi weapons programs and his understanding of the nature and extent of Iraqi efforts to conceal these programs, I can think of no one better suited to carry on this very important work than Charlie Duelfer," the DCI said.
In accepting the position, Duelfer said, "I'm honored that Director Tenet has asked me to tackle this challenging assignment. I'm approaching it with an open mind and am absolutely committed to following the evidence wherever it takes us."
In submitting his resignation, Dr Kay said: "It has been my honor and privilege to work with a tremendous group of men and women in Iraq, Qatar, and Washington. Despite arduous working conditions and an inhospitable and often threatening environment, the ISG, led by General Dayton, has performed its important mission with great skill and the utmost integrity. While there are many unresolved issues, I am confident that the ISG will do everything possible to answer remaining questions about the former Iraqi regime's WMD efforts."
Duelfer, like his predecessor, will be based in Iraq and will be in charge of directing the overall approach for the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. ISG will continue to provide direct support to the Special Advisor.
Before joining UNSCOM in 1993, Duelfer was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for arms control and multilateral defense matters. From 1990 to 1992, he was in charge of defense trade matters as the Director of the Center for Defense Trade and deputy to the Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs. In this capacity, he had responsibility for arms transfers, munitions licensing, and conventional arms control. Duelfer has a B.A. from the University of Connecticut and a M.Sc. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


Posted by maximpost at 11:43 AM EST
Permalink
Thursday, 29 January 2004

McCain Calls for Intelligence Error Probe
By KATHERINE PFLEGER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -
Parting company with many of his fellow Republicans, Sen. John McCain said Thursday he wants an independent commission to take a sweeping look at recent intelligence failures.
The White House has dismissed the proposal, saying the CIA is committed to reviewing the intelligence behind claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration also argues that the weapons search is not yet complete.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., has expressed frustration with those who suggest an outside investigation is needed before his committee has a chance to complete an inquiry now underway. Senate Armed Service Chairman John Warner, R-Va., supports letting the committee finish its work.
In an interview with The Associated Press, McCain said he believes the public needs an assessment that won't be clouded by partisan division. The Arizona senator said he is seeking a full-scale look not only at apparently botched intelligence on Iraq's weapons capabilities, but also flawed estimations of Iraq, North Korea and Libya and the faulty assessments from other Western intelligence services.
"I am absolutely convinced that one is necessary," McCain said, "because this is a very serious issue and we need to not only know what happened, but know what steps are necessary to prevent the United States from ever being misinformed again."
McCain's comments come less than one week after the CIA's lead weapons inspector, David Kay, left his position and began stating publicly that purported weapons of mass destruction didn't exist.
Democratic presidential candidates Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Kerry, and Howard Dean also called for an independent investigation during a debate held Thursday in South Carolina.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice reiterated the administration's position Thursday, saying that efforts to learn the extent of Saddam's weapons arsenal are sufficient.
"No one will want to know more than the president the comparison between what we found when we got there and what we thought was there going in," Rice said on NBC's "Today" show.
When asked if she thought Americans have a legitimate concern about whether intelligence was manipulated to justify the decision to go to war, Rice replied, "The president's judgment to go to the war was based on the fact that Saddam Hussein for 12 years had defied U.N. resolutions" regarding his stock of weapons."
She added that the administration went to war, because Saddam "had been considered a danger for a long time and it was time to take care of that danger."
Kay and some Democrats, including Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., have also stated the need for an outside investigation into the intelligence community. Along with the Senate inquiry, several retired intelligence officers have delivered a review to CIA Director George Tenet on the performance of the CIA and other agencies.
McCain, who was one of the loudest voices in a successful campaign to form a commission on the Sept. 11 attacks, said he spoke to administration officials, but doesn't know what - if any - action the White House will take. McCain believes the investigation would take over a year, removing the findings from election-year politics.
McCain said the commission should consider a series of questions: Were the estimates wrong? If so, why? Who is responsible? What steps need to be taken to ensure that the president has accurate intelligence information?
Names McCain suggested for the commission include former House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash., former Secretary of State and Treasury George Shultz, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

----------------------------

U.S. Military Sure of Catching Bin Laden
By STEPHEN GRAHAM
Associated Press Writer
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- The U.S. military is "sure" it will catch Osama bin Laden this year, perhaps within months, a spokesman declared Thursday, but Pakistan said it would not allow American troops to cross the border in search of the al-Qaida leader.
Thursday also was one of the deadliest days for American forces in Afghanistan: Seven soldiers were killed when a weapons cache exploded southwest of the capital. Three other American soldiers were wounded and another was missing after the blast, the U.S. Central Command said.
U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty's prediction about capturing bin Laden comes as the Army readied a spring offensive against Taliban and al-Qaida holdouts. A U.S. official hinted Wednesday that the offensive might extend into Pakistan.
Bin Laden, chief suspect in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that sparked the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, is believed to be holed up somewhere along the mountainous border.
Pakistani Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema, a senior security official who coordinating counterterrorism efforts with U.S. officials, said Pakistani policies do not allow American troops to operate in the country.
The U.S. commander in the region, Gen. John Abizaid, said Thursday American forces will continue conducting "limited military operations" along the Afghan border, but he has no plans to put U.S. troops inside Pakistan against Pakistani wishes.
Since last month's capture of Saddam Hussein, American commanders in Afghanistan have expressed new optimism about finding bin Laden. Hilferty said the military - the United States has 11,000 men in the country - now believes it could seize him within months.
"We have a variety of intelligence and we're sure we're going to catch Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar this year," Hilferty said. "We've learned lessons from Iraq and we're getting improved intelligence from the Afghan people."
Hilferty declined to comment on where he believed bin Laden or Mullah Omar, the former Taliban leader, might be hiding.
Earlier this week, the American commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David Barno, told the British Broadcasting Corp. that he expects bin Laden to be brought to justice by year's end.
American forces are pinning hopes for better intelligence from Afghans on new security teams setting up in provincial capitals across a swath of southern and eastern Afghanistan.
The security teams are supposed to open the way for millions of dollars in U.S. development aid and allow the Afghan government to regain control over lawless areas largely populated by ethnic Pashtuns, from which the Taliban drew their main support.
This month alone, about 70 people have died violently, including two international peacekeepers killed by suicide bombers in Kabul. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the bomb attacks.
The spring offensive touted by U.S. defense officials Wednesday would come just when the new security teams are supposed to be up and running, and warmer weather opens the high mountain passes.
Hilferty said he could not talk about future operations.
Pakistani officials said Thursday they would not allow American forces to use their territory for any new offensive. Cheema said he had not heard of the plan for a spring offensive.
U.S. forces used Pakistani bases and airspace during the campaign that led to the ouster in late 2001 of the Taliban regime, but Pakistan insisted it only provided logistical support.
"As a matter of fact they (the United States) have not contacted us for this purpose," Cheema told The Associated Press.
A Pakistani intelligence official said Pakistani authorities had no specific information about bin Laden's whereabouts.
Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key U.S. ally, would face withering criticism from political opponents, particularly Islamic hard-liners, if American forces deploy inside Pakistan.
Abizaid called Musharraf a "strong ally" of the United States and said, "We'll help him where he wants help.
"The idea that we would work uncooperatively with the Pakistanis is not one that I'm entertaining," he said.
Despite periodic reports that the Taliban are making a comeback in Afghanistan, "I believe the Taliban is in deep trouble," both as a military and political force, Abizaid said.
Pakistan says it has arrested more than 500 al-Qaida men over the past two years; many of them have been handed over to the United States.
Residents have reported seeing a small number of foreign personnel on such operations, but Pakistan denies it.
"We will not allow any foreign troops to conduct any operations in Pakistan," Pakistani army spokesman Gen. Shaukat Sultan said. "Whenever they (the United States) ask for such thing, we always decline."
In January, Pakistani forces raided a border village where al-Qaida fighters were believed to be hiding. The interior minister said 18 suspected terrorists were captured.
Associated Press writers Bob Burns in Washington and Munir Ahmad in Islamabad, Pakistan, contributed to this report.
Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Posted by maximpost at 11:44 PM EST
Updated: Friday, 30 January 2004 12:11 AM EST
Permalink

Venezuela
Nearing the Moment of Truth
By Mark Falcoff
Posted: Tuesday, January 27, 2004

LATIN AMERICAN OUTLOOK
AEI Online (Washington)
Publication Date: February 1, 2004


Available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format

On December 19, forces opposed to President Hugo Chavez turned over thousands of petitions to the National Electoral Council (CNE) requesting a referendum that would determine whether the Venezuelan leader will remain in office until his present term ends in 2006. Theoretically the council should have rendered a judgment on the authenticity of the signatures within thirty days. As this Outlook goes to press, however, the verdict remains unclear. The delay is perhaps understandable: a fateful step in Venezuela's future hinges upon the outcome.

The recall petition was inspired by provisions of Chavez's own 1999 constitution, which allows for a referendum to determine midway through the term of any president whether he or she should continue in office. But before such a referendum can be held, certain requirements must be met. The most important of these is that the petitioners must gather signatures from at least 20 percent of the electorate; further, in the event the referendum takes place, the challengers must win not merely a majority but exceed in absolute numbers the votes that the president won in his original election--in this case, 3.9 million.

So far the opposition, divided into dozens of small groups and formerly without a clear focus other than removing Chavez, has managed the feat admirably, gathering 3.4 million signatures, exceeding the number required by more than one million. In order to achieve this outcome, it was necessary to deploy its forces all over the country, including in some of the remotest areas; to negotiate past various bureaucratic obstacles the government attempted to place in its way; to convince many people not only to place their signature on the petition but also the number of their national identity card; and to overcome the general distaste that many Venezuelans in recent years have developed for politics and politicians.

Moreover, the exercise revealed the opposition to be more motivated both in their numbers and in their intensity than Chavez's supporters, who were circulating a petition of their own--in their case, to recall "disloyal" members of the National Assembly who, elected on Chavez's ticket, have since turned against him, as well as other office holders not to the liking of the president. In their exercise they were only able to gather 2.6 million signatures-a remarkably small number considering the role government plays in the lives of ordinary Venezuelans and the immense economic resources at Chavez's disposal to punish the disloyal or reward the pliant.

If the opposition petition is validated by the council, a referendum will be held, probably in May. Given the stakes, it can hardly be surprising that Chavez is in no hurry to rush matters along. He has already claimed that one million of the signatures gathered are fraudulent, an allegation strongly contested by observers from both the Organization of American States and the Carter Center in Atlanta. Chavez has also made veiled--or not so veiled--threats to the council itself, suggesting in a newspaper interview that "if the referee loses the respect of the players, the game may well not end at all" (El Universal, January 13).

Economic Deterioration

If Chavez seems unenthusiastic about the possibility of a referendum, he has his reasons. True, he has recovered some popularity in recent months, thanks partly to the generous (some might say reckless) disbursal of government money in the poorer areas of Caracas and to a broad popular reaction against the opposition-led lockout strikes last year. Nevertheless, Chavez is still opposed by six out of ten Venezuelans. This is not surprising. In spite of oil prices holding at their highest level in more than a decade, for most Venezuelans the economic situation continues to deteriorate. Since Chavez took office, some 500,000 have emigrated, many of them skilled professionals. Last year real GDP growth dropped by 20 percent, while the consumer price index rose by almost a quarter. The rapid disappearance of much of Venezuela's private sector, particularly construction, has produced serious unemployment. The decline in manufacturing has rendered the country more vulnerable than ever to the vagaries of international petroleum market, and there is some question whether the state oil company, PDVSA, would be in a position to increase production significantly in the event of a sudden price decline.

The centrality of oil in Venezuela is such that PDVSA's operations are no longer merely subject to technical discussion but political debate as well. Since the enterprise was started up again early last year after a crippling strike, which cost the country some $16 billion, the government insists that it is now producing 3.1 million barrels a day (the opposition claims 2.6 million). The latter also points to the loss of many technicians, while the government asserts that--paradoxically--their departure actually made the enterprise more productive and cost-effective. (The current PDVSA leadership claims that the company was bloated by an excessively large management staff.) According to the Oil and Gas Journal (December 22, 2003), line managers are less sanguine about the company's operations than (politically appointed) top managers. Wherever the truth may lie in this matter, Chavez has placed a double burden on the company--its receipts must support not only a subsidized price for gasoline at home, but finance various social projects, including supporting local communities where company facilities happen to be.

Oil Minister Ali Rodriguez claims that the company invested $3.25 billion in new facilities in 2003 and looks forward to investing another $5 billion in the near future. Raising such a sum on international capital markets will not be easy, because of the country's mounting internal debt and a hydrocarbons law passed in 2001 that the international energy community finds unattractive. Rodriguez is quoted in a leading trade paper as saying that PDVSA would carry out its investment plan without adding to its current debt of $8 billion, but in fact Venezuela's industry requires an average investment of $2 billion each year just to compensate for declining output from existing wells (Oil Daily, January 12, 2004).

Rodriguez's targets seem even more remote in light of the fact that the government has announced plans to freeze the growth of third-party operating agreements, under which the state company paid private oil companies to exploit marginal fields. (Such operations currently represent about 500,000 barrels per day of Venezuelan production.) The oil minister plans to convert these contracts into joint ventures with majority state participation, as required by the hydrocarbons law. So far only two companies have agreed to the new arrangements, and the article in Oil and Gas Journal cited above emphasizes the extreme caution with which foreign investors now view the oil and gas sectors in Venezuela.

To be sure, not all of Venezuela's economic indicators are negative. Chavez claims that Venezuela's economy will grow 10 percent this year, while some U.S. economists put the figure at 7 percent. Even so, it would still have quite a ways to go, however, to recover the ground lost since 1998, when Chavez became president. High oil prices have driven the country's reserves to a record $21.3 billion, and the quest for higher yields at a time of low interest rates worldwide has made it easier to sell Venezuelan debt paper on Wall Street and elsewhere. (Its new thirty-year bond issue was bid up to $3 billion.) On the other hand, neither Chavez nor his finance minister has been very specific as to what the money will be used for.

Chavez's Latest Posturing

As things stand today, it seems unlikely that Chavez could win a referendum. If it is held before August 19, the constitution mandates a new election within thirty days. After that date, however, his defeat would simply allow his vice president, Jose Vicente Rangel, to fill out the remainder of his unexpired term. This would constitute at best a Pyrrhic victory for the opposition, since Rangel is an ideological clone of Chavez, although notably more clever and more artful. This explains why the president and his associates take the view that if the exercise has to happen at all, it should not happen soon. No doubt they will urge upon the CNE every delaying tactic and recourse.

Meanwhile, however, Chavez has been engaged in a war of nerves against both the CNE and the opposition. Apart from claiming fraud, he also asserts (somewhat disingenuously) that since it is virtually certain that the opposition will lose the referendum anyway, they should forget about it and concentrate on elections for governors and mayors scheduled for July. On his Sunday morning radio call-in show, he raises the rhetorical temperature far higher, insisting, for example, that all his opponents are "terrorists" and "coup-makers"; if they try to repeat the unsuccessful military ouster of April 11, 2002, he will "fill them full of lead."

Lately the president has also taken to attacking foreign personalities he suspects of being sympathetic with his opposition, or at least insufficiently respectful of his conduct and policies. They include U.S. ambassador Charles Shapiro, OAS secretary-general Cesar Gaviria, the papal nuncio, and Enrique Iglesias, president of the Inter-American Development Bank. In recent weeks he has added President Bush, Spanish prime minister Jose Aznar, and Colombian president Alvaro Uribe. In the run-up to the Monterrey Summit of hemispheric leaders, he described National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice--who had admonished Chavez to respect his own constitution insofar as the referendum is concerned--as an "illiterate." (He invited her to take advantage of the Cuban literacy brigades that are presently fanning out over the Venezuelan countryside.) He has also stirred the South American diplomatic pot by insisting on Bolivia's right to territory on the Pacific lost in a war with Chile in 1879. As one Cuban exile living in Caracas writes, "to live in Venezuela today is a journey back in time, a replay of 1961 without the revolutionary mystique."[1] He might have added, without a revolution either.

Ending the Stalemate

Paradoxically one of the principal beneficiaries of the opposition's signature-gathering exercise (known in Spanish as the reafirmazo) has been Chavez himself insofar as it had the effect of calming--temporarily, at least--Venezuela's tense political environment. The opposition had a concrete task in front of it and went about its business with enthusiasm and even brio. It has clearly fulfilled its side of the bargain. For Chavez to refuse to respect his own institutionality would revive a mood of confrontation and even violence, causing the country to lurch into a pre-civil war mood of the type that characterized the weeks before the failed coup of April 11, 2002. The president would be well-counseled to accept defeat at the polls if in fact that were the outcome, since he would still remain by far the most popular single politician in the country, and the responsibility for cleaning up the mess he has created would fall to his hapless successors. He might well be returned in glory at the earliest possible opportunity--and by clean elections!

Unfortunately, many signals indicate that this is a risk the Venezuelan leader would rather not confront. One is the fact that he is expanding the army by 65,000 new recruits, a curious number for a country facing no serious military or geopolitical threat. Another is his evident desire to politicize the armed forces and make of them the party he has never bothered to create. Yet another are plans to expand the Supreme Court from twenty to thirty-two members and to increase the number of members specifically charged with deciding constitutional issues from five to seven. There is much talk now of reviving a draft "Law of Content" that would essentially establish government censorship of the media, the one power in the country that Chavez has been unable to subordinate to his will.

Venezuela today is languishing in something close to a classic stalemate, but one that might well be broken under very unpropitious circumstances. Neither government nor opposition can eliminate one another, and neither seems particularly interested in reaching a compromise. But there is a difference between the two. If the opposition loses the referendum, it will accept its defeat with grudging good grace. Chavez, however, has already made it clear that he has no intention of leaving power, come what may. Nor does he seem to be interested in politics as usual, with its give-and-take. Unless he changes his tune (and his behavior), the consequences are all too thinkable--and fearsome. The petitions are sitting at the National Electoral Council; the ball is now in Chavez's court.

Notes

1. Benigno Nieto, "Venezuela, una tragedia cubana," Cubaencuentro.org, January 20, 2004.

Mark Falcoff is a resident scholar at AEI.

Posted by maximpost at 11:27 PM EST
Permalink

The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) hereby submits this report in response to a Congressionally directed action in Section 721 of the FY 1997 Intelligence Authorization Act, which requires:
"(a) Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Director of Central Intelligence shall submit to Congress a report on
(1) the acquisition by foreign countries during the preceding 6 months of dual-use and other technology useful for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons) and advanced conventional munitions; and
(2) trends in the acquisition of such technology by such countries."
At the DCI's request, the DCI Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) drafted this report and coordinated it throughout the Intelligence Community. As directed by Section 721, subsection (b) of the Act, it is unclassified. As such, the report does not present the details of the Intelligence Community's assessments of weapons of mass destruction and advanced conventional munitions programs that are available in other classified reports and briefings for the Congress.
Acquisition by Country
As required by Section 721 of the FY 1997 Intelligence Authorization Act, the following are country summaries of acquisition activities (solicitations, negotiations, contracts, and deliveries) related to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and advanced conventional weapons (ACW) that occurred from 1 January through 30 June 2003. We have excluded countries that already have established WMD programs, as well as countries that demonstrated little WMD acquisition activity of concern.
Iran
Iran continued to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce WMD-nuclear, chemical, and biological-and their delivery systems as well as ACW. To this end, Iran continued to seek foreign materials, training, equipment, and know-how. During the reporting period, Iran still focused particularly on entities in Russia, China, North Korea, and Europe.
Nuclear. The United States remains convinced that Tehran has been pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, in violation of its obligations as a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). To bolster its efforts to establish domestic nuclear fuel-cycle capabilities, Iran sought technology that can support fissile material production for a nuclear weapons program.
Iran tried to use its civilian nuclear energy program to justify its efforts to establish domestically or otherwise acquire assorted nuclear fuel-cycle capabilities. In August 2002, an Iranian opposition group disclosed that Iran was secretly building a heavy water production plant and a "nuclear fuel" plant. Press reports later in the year confirmed these two facilities using commercial imagery and clarified that the "fuel" plant was most likely a large uranium centrifuge enrichment facility located at Natanz. Commercial imagery showed that Iran was burying the enrichment facility presumably to hide it and harden it against military attack. Following the press disclosures, Iran announced at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) September 2002 General Conference that it had "ambitious" nuclear fuel cycle plans and intended to develop all aspects of the entire fuel cycle. By the end of 2002, the IAEA had requested access to the enrichment facility at Natanz, and the IAEA Director General (DG) for the first time visited the facility in February 2003. The IAEA is investigating the newly disclosed facilities, and previously undisclosed nuclear material imports to determine whether Iran has violated its NPT-required IAEA safeguards agreement in developing these facilities and their related technologies. At the June 2003 Board of Governors meeting, the IAEA DG presented a report on the Iranian program noting Tehran had failed to meet its safeguards obligations in a number of areas. The DG's report described a pattern of Iranian safeguards failures related to the undeclared import and processing of uranium compounds in the early 1990s, expressed concern over the lack of cooperation from Iran with IAEA inspections, and identified a number of unresolved concerns in Iran's program that the IAEA will continue to investigate. The IAEA Board on 19 June welcomed the report and called on Iran to answer all IAEA questions, cooperate fully with IAEA inspectors, and sign and implement an Additional Protocol immediately and unconditionally.
Although Iran claims that its nascent enrichment plant is to produce fuel for the Russian-assisted construction projects at Bushehr and other possible future power reactors, we remain concerned that Iran is developing enrichment technology to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons under the cover of legitimate fuel cycle activities. Iran appears to be embarking on acquiring nuclear weapons material via both acquisition paths--highly enriched uranium and low burn-up plutonium. Even with intrusive IAEA safeguards inspections at Natanz, there is a serious risk that Iran could use its enrichment technology in covert activities. Of specific proliferation concern are the uranium centrifuges discovered at Natanz, which are capable of enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Iran claims its heavy water plant is for peaceful purposes. In June, Iran informed the IAEA that it is pursuing a heavy water research reactor that we believe could produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. We also suspect that Tehran is interested in acquiring fissile material and technology from foreign suppliers to support its overall nuclear weapons program.
Ballistic Missile. Ballistic missile-related cooperation from entities in the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and China over the years has helped Iran move toward its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles. Such assistance during the first half of 2003 continued to include equipment, technology, and expertise. Iran's ballistic missile inventory is among the largest in the Middle East and includes some 1,300-km-range Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) and a few hundred short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs)--including the Shahab-1 (Scud-B), Shahab-2 (Scud C), and Tondar-69 (CSS-8)--as well as a variety of large unguided rockets. Already producing Scud SRBMs, Iran announced that it had begun production of the Shahab-3 MRBM and a new solid-propellant SRBM, the Fateh-110. In addition, Iran publicly acknowledged the development of follow-on versions of the Shahab-3. It originally said that another version, the Shahab-4, was a more capable ballistic missile than its predecessor but later characterized it as solely a space launch vehicle with no military applications. Iran is also pursuing longer-range ballistic missiles.
Chemical. Iran is a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Nevertheless, during the reporting period it continued to seek production technology, training, and expertise from Chinese entities that could further Tehran's efforts to achieve an indigenous capability to produce nerve agents. Iran likely has already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents--and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them--which it previously had manufactured.
Biological. Even though Iran is part of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), Tehran probably maintained an offensive BW program. Iran continued to seek dual-use biotechnical materials, equipment, and expertise. While such materials had legitimate uses, Iran's biological warfare (BW) program also could have benefited from them. It is likely that Iran has capabilities to produce small quantities of BW agents, but has a limited ability to weaponize them.
Advanced Conventional Weapons. Iran continued to seek and acquire conventional weapons and production technologies, primarily from Russia, China, and North Korea. Tehran also sought high-quality products, particularly weapons components and dual-use items, or products that proved difficult to acquire through normal governmental channels.
Iraq
During the period covered by this report, coalition forces took action under Operation Iraqi Freedom to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq. A large-scale effort is currently underway to find the answers to the many outstanding questions about Iraq's WMD and delivery systems.
North Korea
Nuclear. In December 2002, North Korea announced its intention to resume operation of nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, which had been frozen under the terms of the 1994 US-North Korea Agreed Framework. IAEA seals and monitoring equipment were removed and disabled, and IAEA inspectors expelled from the country.
On 10 January 2003, North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT Treaty). In late February 2003, North Korea restarted its 5 Mwe reactor which could produce spent fuel rods containing plutonium.
In late April 2003, North Korea told US officials that it possessed nuclear weapons, and signaled its intent to reprocess the 1994 canned spent fuel for more nuclear weapons. On 9 June, North Korea openly threatened to build a nuclear deterrent force. We continued to monitor and assess North Korea's nuclear weapons efforts.
Ballistic Missile. North Korea also has continued procurement of raw materials and components for its extensive ballistic missile programs from various foreign sources. In the first half of 2003, North Korea continued to abide by its voluntary moratorium on flight tests adopted in 1998, but announced it may reconsider its September 2002 offer to extend the moratorium beyond 2003. The multiple-stage Taepo Dong-2--capable of reaching parts of the United States with a nuclear weapon-sized payload--may be ready for flight-testing. North Korea is nearly self-sufficient in developing and producing ballistic missiles, and has demonstrated a willingness to sell complete systems and components that have enabled other states to acquire longer range capabilities earlier than would otherwise have been possible and to acquire the basis for domestic development efforts.
Chemical. North Korea is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). During the reporting period, Pyongyang continued to acquire dual-use chemicals that could potentially be used to support Pyongyang's long-standing chemical warfare program. North Korea's chemical warfare capabilities included the ability to produce bulk quantities of nerve, blister, choking and blood agent, using its sizeable, although aging, chemical industry. North Korea possesses a stockpile of unknown size of these agents and weapons, which it could employ in a variety of delivery means.
Biological. North Korea has acceded to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, but nonetheless has pursued biological warfare (BW) capabilities since the 1960s. Pyongyang acquired dual-use biotechnical equipment, supplies, and reagents that could be used to support North Korea's BW efforts. As of the first half of 2003, North Korea was believed to have possessed a munitions production infrastructure that would have allowed it to weaponize BW agents, and may have such weapons available for use.
Libya
Nuclear. An NPT party with full-scope IAEA safeguards, Libya continued to develop its nuclear infrastructure. The suspension of UN sanctions provided Libya the means to enhance its nuclear infrastructure through foreign cooperation and procurement efforts. Tripoli and Moscow continued talks on cooperation at the Tajura Nuclear Research Center and a potential power reactor deal. Such civil-sector work could have presented Libya with opportunities to pursue technologies also suitable for military purposes. In addition, Libya participated in various technical exchanges through which it could have tried to obtain dual-use equipment and technology that could have enhanced its overall technical capabilities in the nuclear area. Although Libya made political overtures to the West in an attempt to strengthen relations, Libya's assertion that Arabs have the right to nuclear weapons in light of Israel and its nuclear program--as Qadhafi stated in a televised speech in March 2002, for example--and Tripoli's continued interest in nuclear weapons and nuclear infrastructure upgrades raised concerns.
Ballistic Missile. The suspension of UN sanctions in 1999 allowed Libya to expand its efforts to obtain ballistic missile-related equipment, materials, technology, and expertise from foreign sources. During the first half of 2003, Libya continued to depend on foreign assistance--particularly from Serbian, Indian, Iranian, North Korean, and Chinese entities--for its ballistic missile development programs. Libya's capability therefore may not still be limited to its Soviet-origin Scud-B missiles. With continued foreign assistance, Libya will likely achieve an MRBM capability--a long-desired goal--probably through direct purchase from North Korea or Iran.
Chemical and Biological. Libya also remained heavily dependent on foreign suppliers for CW precursor chemicals and other key related equipment. Following the suspension of UN sanctions, Tripoli reestablished contacts with sources of expertise, parts, and precursor chemicals abroad, primarily in Western Europe. Libya has indicated--as evidenced by its observer status at the April 2003 Chemical Weapons Convention Review Conference and previous Convention Conferences of States Parties--a willingness to accede to the CWC. Such efforts are consistent with steps that Tripoli is taking to improve its international standing. Tripoli still appeared to be working toward an offensive CW capability and eventual indigenous production. Evidence suggested that Libya also sought dual-use capabilities that could be used to develop and produce BW agents.
Advanced Conventional Weapons. Libya continued to seek new advanced conventional weapons and received assistance from other countries in maintaining its inventory of Soviet-era weapons.
Syria
Nuclear. Syria--an NPT signatory with full-scope IAEA safeguards--has a nuclear research center at Dayr Al Hajar. Russia and Syria have continued their long-standing agreements on cooperation regarding nuclear energy, although specific assistance has not yet materialized. Broader access to foreign expertise provides opportunities to expand its indigenous capabilities and we are looking at Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern.
Ballistic Missile. During the first half of 2003, Damascus continued to seek help from abroad to establish a solid-propellant rocket motor development and production capability. Syria's liquid-propellant missile program continued to depend on essential foreign equipment and assistance--primarily from North Korean entities. Damascus also continued to manufacture liquid-propellant Scud missiles. In addition, Syria was developing longer-range missile programs such as a Scud D and possibly other variants with assistance from North Korea and Iran.
Chemical and Biological. Syria continued to seek CW-related expertise from foreign sources during the reporting period. Damascus already held a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin, but apparently tried to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents. Syria remained dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its CW program, including precursor chemicals and key production equipment. It is highly probable that Syria also continued to develop an offensive BW capability.
Advanced Conventional Weapons. Syria continued to acquire limited quantities of ACW, mainly from Russia. Damascus's Soviet-era debt to Moscow and inability to fund large purchases continued to hamper efforts to purchase the large quantity of equipment Syria requires to replace its aging weapons inventory.
Sudan
Chemical and Biological. Although Sudan has aspired to a CW program, the US is working with Sudan to reconcile concerns about its past attempts to seek capabilities from abroad.
Advanced Conventional Weapons. During the reporting period, Sudan sought a variety of military equipment from various sources and received Mi-24 attack helicopters from Russia. In the long-running civil war, as well as for a general military modernization campaign, Khartoum has generally sought older, less expensive ACW and conventional weapons that nonetheless offered more advanced capabilities than the weapons of its opponents and their supporters in neighboring countries. We continued to remain concerned that Sudan might seek a ballistic missile capability in the future.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Terrorism
The threat of terrorists using chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) materials remained high. Many of the 33 designated foreign terrorist organizations and other nonstate actors worldwide have expressed interest in CBRN. Although terrorist groups probably will continue to favor long-proven conventional tactics such as bombings and shootings, the arrest of ricin plotters in London in January 2003 indicated that international mujahidin terrorists were actively plotting to conduct chemical and biological attacks.
Increased publicity surrounding the anthrax incidents since the September 11 attacks has highlighted the vulnerability of civilian and government targets to CBRN attacks.
One of our highest concerns is al-Qa'ida's stated readiness to attempt unconventional attacks against us. As early as 1998, Usama Bin Ladin publicly declared that acquiring unconventional weapons was "a religious duty."
Individuals from terrorist groups worldwide undertook poison training at al-Qa'ida-sponsored camps in Afghanistan and have ready access to information on chemical, biological, radiological, and to some extent, even nuclear weapons, via the Internet, publicly available scientific literature, and scientific conferences, and we know that al-Qa'ida was working to acquire some of the most dangerous chemical agents and toxins. A senior Bin Ladin associate on trial in Egypt in 1999 claimed his group had chemical and biological weapons. Documents and equipment recovered from al-Qa'ida facilities in Afghanistan show that Bin Ladin had a more sophisticated unconventional weapons research program than was previously known.
We also know that al-Qa'ida has ambitions to acquire or develop nuclear weapons and was receptive to any outside nuclear assistance that might become available. In February 2001, during the trial on the al-Qa'ida bombings of the American Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, a government witness--Jamal Ahmad Fadl--testified that al-Qa'ida pursued the sale of a quantity of purported enriched uranium (which in fact probably was scam material) in Sudan in the early 1990s.
We assess that terrorist groups are capable of conducting attacks using crude radiological dispersal devices--i.e., ones that would not cause large-scale casualties, even though they could cause tremendous psychological effects, and possibly create considerable economic disruption as well. This type of threat first appeared in November 1995 when Chechen rebels placed a package containing radioactive cesium on a bench in Moscow's Izmailovo Park. In addition, we are alert to the very real possibility that al-Qa'ida or other terrorist groups might also try to launch conventional attacks against the chemical or nuclear industrial infrastructure of the United States to cause panic and economic disruption.
Key Suppliers:
Russia
During the first half of 2003, Russia's cash-strapped defense, biotechnology, chemical, aerospace, and nuclear industries continued to be eager to raise funds via exports and transfers. Some Russian universities and scientific institutes also showed a willingness to earn much-needed funds by providing WMD or missile-related teaching and training for foreign students. Given the large potential proliferation impact of such exports, transfers, and training, monitoring the activities of specific entities as well as the overall effectiveness of the Russian Government's nonproliferation regime remained an important element of the US bilateral dialogue with Russia on nonproliferation.
Nuclear. During the first half of 2003, Russia continued to play a key role in constructing the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant project in Iran. However, President Putin has insisted that all Iranian programs in the nuclear field be placed under IAEA control.
President Putin in May 2000 amended the presidential decree on nuclear exports to allow Russia in exceptional cases to export nuclear materials, technology, and equipment to countries that do not have full-scope IAEA safeguards. For example, Russia supplied India with material for its civilian nuclear program in 2001.
Ballistic Missile. Russian entities during the reporting period continued to supply a variety of ballistic missile-related goods and technical know-how to countries such as Iran, India, and China. Iran's earlier success in gaining technology and materials from Russian entities helped to accelerate Iranian development of the Shahab-3 MRBM, and continuing Russian entity assistance has supported Iranian efforts to develop new missiles and increase Tehran's self-sufficiency in missile production.
Chemical and Biological. During the first half of 2003, Russian entities remained a key source of dual-use biotechnology equipment, chemicals and related expertise for countries of concern with active CBW programs. Russia's well-known biological and chemical expertise made it an attractive target for countries seeking assistance in areas with CBW applications.
Advanced Conventional Weapons. Russia continued to be a major supplier of conventional arms. Following Moscow's abrogation of the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement in November 2000, Russian officials stated that they saw Iran as a significant source of potential revenue from arms sales and believed that Tehran could become Russia's third-largest conventional arms customer after China and India. In 2001, Russia was the primary source of ACW for China, Iran, Libya, and Sudan, and one of the largest sources for India. As an example, Russia actively marketed its thermobaric weapons at international arms shows, which likely increases the availability of this type of weapon in the open market.
Russia continued to be the main supplier of technology and equipment to India's and China's naval nuclear propulsion programs. In addition, Russia discussed leasing nuclear-powered attack submarines to India.
Export Controls. The Duma enacted new export control legislation in 1999, and Putin in 2000 and 2001 reorganized the export control bureaucracy to establish an interdepartmental export control coordinating body, the Export Control Commission of the Russian Federation. This organization was to establish federal oversight over export control, including compliance with international export control standards. Further, in 2001, Putin signed into effect several of the new law's implementing decrees, which updated export control lists for biological pathogens, chemicals, missiles, and related dual-use technologies and equipment. In May 2002, Russia amended its criminal code to allow for stricter punishment for violations involving the illegal export of material, equipment, and scientific-technical information that may be used in creating WMD or military equipment. The Code of Administrative Violations was also updated and became law as of July 2002. This enactment provided the Department for Export Control (under the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade) with significant administrative enforcement authority. In May 2003, President Putin signed the new Customs Code of the Russian Federation that simplifies customs rules and procedures with the ultimate goal of reducing red tape and arbitrary actions of customs officers. The Code also brings Russia in compliance with the Kyoto Convention on Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures.
Despite progress in creating a legal and bureaucratic framework for Russia's export controls, lax enforcement remained a serious concern. To reduce the outward flow of WMD and missile-related materials, technology, and expertise, top officials must make a sustained effort to convince exporting entities--as well as the bureaucracy whose job it is to oversee them--that nonproliferation is a top priority and that those who violate the law will be prosecuted.
North Korea
Nuclear. In late April 2003 during the Beijing talks, North Korea privately threatened to export nuclear weapons.
Ballistic Missile. Throughout the first half of 2003, North Korea continued to export significant ballistic missile-related equipment, components, materials, and technical expertise to the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa. Pyongyang attached high priority to the development and sale of ballistic missiles, equipment, and related technology. Exports of ballistic missiles and related technology were one of the North's major sources of hard currency, which supported ongoing missile development and production.
China
Over the past several years, Beijing improved its nonproliferation posture through commitments to multilateral arms control regimes, promulgation of export controls, and strengthened oversight mechanisms, but the proliferation behavior of Chinese companies remains of great concern.
Nuclear. In October 1997, China agreed to end cooperation with Iran on supplying a uranium conversion facility (UCF), not to enter into any new nuclear cooperation with Iran, and to bring to conclusion within a reasonable period of time the two existing projects. We remained concerned that some interactions of concern between Chinese and Iranian entities were continuing. China also made bilateral pledges to the United States that go beyond its 1992 NPT commitment not to assist any country in the acquisition or development of nuclear weapons. For example, in May 1996, Beijing pledged that it would not provide assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. We cannot rule out, however, some continued contacts subsequent to the pledge between Chinese entities and entities associated with Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.
Ballistic Missile. In November 2000, China committed not to assist, in any way, any country in the development of ballistic missiles that could be used to deliver nuclear weapons, and in August 2002, as part of its commitment, promulgated a comprehensive missile-related export control system, similar in scope to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex. China is not a member of the MTCR, but on several occasions has pledged not to sell MTCR Category I systems.
Although Beijing has taken some steps to educate firms and individuals on the new missile-related export regulations--offering its first national training course on Chinese export controls in February 2003--Chinese entities continued to work with Pakistan and Iran on ballistic missile-related projects during the first half of 2003. Chinese entity assistance has helped Pakistan move toward domestic serial production of solid-propellant SRBMs and supported Pakistan's development of solid-propellant MRBMs. Chinese-entity ballistic missile-related assistance helped Iran move toward its goal of becoming self-sufficient in the production of ballistic missiles. In addition, firms in China provided dual-use missile-related items, raw materials, and/or assistance to several other countries of proliferation concern--such as Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
Chemical. Since 1997, the US imposed numerous sanctions against Chinese entities for providing material support to the Iranian CW program. Evidence during the current reporting period showed that Chinese firms still provided dual-use CW-related production equipment and technology to Iran. In October 2002, China promulgated new controls on biological items and updated chemical-related regulations, and now claims to control all major items on the Australia Group lists.
Advanced Conventional Weapons. During the first half of 2003, China remained a primary supplier of advanced conventional weapons to Pakistan and Iran. Islamabad also continued to negotiate with Beijing for China to build up to four frigates for Pakistan's navy and to develop the FC-1 fighter aircraft.
Other Countries
Countries of proliferation concern continued to approach entities in Western Europe, South Asia, and the US to provide needed acquisitions for their WMD and missile programs. Proliferators and associated networks continued to seek machine tools, spare parts for dual-use equipment, and widely available materials, scientific equipment, and specialty metals. Although western European countries strove to tighten export control regulations, Iran continued to successfully procure dual-use goods and materials from Europe. In addition, several Western European countries remained willing to negotiate ACW sales to Libya, India, Pakistan, and other countries in order to preserve their domestic defense industries. North Korea approached Western Euro-pean entities to obtain acquisitions for its uranium enrichment program. A shipment of aluminum tubing--enough for 4,000 centrifuge tubes--was halted by German authorities.
Western European countries were still an important source for the proliferation of WMD- and missile-related information and training. The relatively advanced research of European institutes, the availability of relevant dual-use studies and information, the enthusiasm of scientists for sharing their research, and the availability of dual-use training and education may have shortened development time for some WMD and missile programs.
Emerging State and Non-State Suppliers
As nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic missile-applicable technologies continued to be more available around the world, new sources of supply emerged that made the challenge of stemming WMD and missile proliferation even more complex and difficult. Nuclear fuel-cycle and weapons-related technologies have spread to the point that, from a technical view, additional states may be able to produce sufficient fissile material and to develop the capability to weaponize it. As developing countries expanded their chemical industries into pesticide production, they also advanced toward at least latent chemical warfare capability. Likewise, additional non-state actors became more interested in the potential of using biological warfare as a relatively inexpensive way to inflict serious damage. The proliferation of increasingly capable ballistic missile designs and technology posed the threat of more countries of concern developing longer-range missiles and imposing greater risks to regional stability.
In this context, there was a growing concern that additional states that have traditionally been recipients of WMD and missile-related technology might have followed North Korea's practice of supplying specific WMD-related technology and expertise to other countries or by going one step further to supply such expertise to non-state actors. Even in cases where states took action to stem such transfers, there were growing numbers of knowledgeable individuals or non-state purveyors of WMD- and missile-related materials and technology, who were able to act outside government constraints. Such non-state actors were increasingly capable of providing technology and equipment that previously could only be supplied directly by countries with established capabilities.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reports Page | CIA Homepage

Posted by maximpost at 11:05 PM EST
Permalink

>> CONVERSATIONS OF INTEREST...

BEYOND IC21?
http://www.moretothepoint.com/
Intelligence and Claims of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction listen
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell all said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So did Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. France and Russia never denied it. David Kay, America's former top weapons inspector, once thought so too but has concluded that he and other intelligence experts "were all wrong" about what they were telling political leaders. Skeptics, both here and abroad, still suspect evidence was manipulated to justify war in Iraq. How could so many intelligence agencies have been so wrong about weapons of mass destruction? What was the intelligence based on? Were analysts stuck with out-dated assumptions? What kind of evidence should be required to justify pre-emptive war? We speak with journalists, former CIA intelligence officials, political scientists and the head of the Carnegie Institute's Non-Proliferation Project.


ON PAKISTAN...

FOGGY SPEAK...
http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/20040129.shtml
Pakistan interview (4:00)
The US Department of Defense is planning a spring offensive in Afghanistan. The US military hopes to find Osama bin Ladin this year, but if he crosses into Pakistan, the hunt could get complicated. Pakistan said today it won't allow US forces on its territory. The World's Lisa Mullins speaks with Teresita Schaffer, Director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

...STREAMING BBC - DISAGGREGATE ENGLISH CLUSTERS?
10:00 PM 1/29/2004
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/index.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/indepth/cluster/2004/01/040120_pak_nuclear_special.shtml

Posted by maximpost at 10:58 PM EST
Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older